QuILT-rules

 QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content

Terms and conditions (offered by teachers, revisions by Students - s also the history behind and the discussions parallel):

• All sources (like Internet, books, persons, etc.) can always be involved into the problem solving by Students.
• No data/fact should be learned (in the classic way - but: the problem solving is mostly faster, if a rel. big data asset is available in the brain of the Students.)
• Good questions can not be answered through simple Google searches.
• Questions, which can be answered through simple searches are queries (concerning more or less structured databases).
• Knowledge is, what can be transformed into source code, each other human activity is a kind of artistic activity (cf. Motto from Knuth).
• Students should not only be capable of reflecting the already well-known “knowledge” from the past, but they have to find problems, lacks, risks, forms of inconsistency in the structure of the given net of facts and rules. Therefore: Students should become a better expert as their classic teachers.
• A relevant question (what can not be answered through a trivial search process) is: what is better than an other object, where object can be an arbitrary phenomenon (like persons, subjects, processes, time-windows, regions, etc.).
• The real role of the “teachers” is the role of a coaches.
• The learning/teaching/coaching processes should be as far as possible to produce log-data (e.g. questions and answers from each participants of the processes should always be collected in a written form).
• The magic of words is not the final form of the description of knowledge, where quasi the whole written sources are element of the magic of words because the human words/terms are not to define in an arbitrary exactness.
• It worth knowing about the Academic Writing Skills as far as possible (especially in cases, where relevant messages of a study should be created in form of an SMS - e.g. for the introduction, elements of the literature, conclusion, etc.).
• The log-based evaluations of performances of the Students will always be public in a way ensuring anonimity (see: PLA-phase, mid-term dashboards, final evaluation).
• Performances should be compared to each other as far as possible (c.f. benchmarking).
• Evaluations of Students should be derived about his/her performances not only by the coaches, but especially by about at least 3 further Students.
• Each Question should be answered as far as possible in the first case by Students and just later by teachers.
• Unprepared declarations from coaches and/or the literature without any trial & error effects by Students are to minimize.
• ...

The list above is also a kind of magic of words - because each word, each sentence can be interpreted quasi in arbitrary ways. Ethical hackers are experts being capable of highlighting the potential of parallel interpretations. Everybody can become an ethical hacker. Each comments and questions concerning the above listed offers for common rules are elements of a process of ethical hacker activities.

Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!